I would like to have some more information on the MS-5/Bowlus XTG-12 connection. From my research, it is clear that three XTG-12s were ordered on 28 April 1942 although none were built. However, one existing Bowlus glider was impressed as XTG-12 with serial 42-57200. There is also mention of an XTG-12A. Other sources have suggested three Bowlus gliders were impressed. There is a picture of a two seat Bowlus XBM-5 glider, registered NX28386 that flew in 1942 and may have been one of the XTG-12s.With Michael Stroukoff starting his own company in February 1942, I find it difficult to beloeve that he could have been involved in the XTG-12 work, the more so as Bowlus operated in California on the west coast and Stroukoff operated at on the east coast. May be Michael Stroukoff built a Bowlus glider from a kit, or whatever, (for pleasure or research), but, if that's the case, I would suggest the XTG-12 link is not correct. But, may be there is additional information to explain all this further and allows us to clear up another aviation historical question.

According to Peter Bowers (and whatever info he had at his disposal in 1957, when he wrote this, in the Nov.-Dec. issue of Soaring):

Quote

"[The] two-place Model BA-102" "a rare and little-known member of the famous Bowlus family of sailplanes, designed by William Hawley Bowlus", "was submitted to the Army for consideration as a trainer under the designation of XTG-12.Back in 1941, when the Army was just starting a glider program, two-place sailplanes were used for initial training. (...) New designs, mostly of wood to conserve scarce metals, were developed for military consideration after the program had begun using sailplane trainers. The Briegleb BG-8 (XTG-13) is a well-known example, along with the BA-102.The BA-102 was a clean and simple design, with a minimum of compound curves. The wing position was a true mid-wing, with the seating arrangement rather unusual for a two-place ship, in that the rear cockpit was ahead of the wing spar. This provided much better visibility for the rear occupant than was available in the TG-2's, 3's and 4's, in which the rear cockpit was behind the main spar of the mid or low wing. The fuselage was of semi-monocoque plywood construction. Wing span was 44 feet 8 inches, length 19 feet 4 inches, and the empty weight was 450 pounds. L/D was given as 20:1.Shortly after the Bowlus and Briegleb were submitted for test, the Army glider program underwent a change of policy, under which it was decided that the training of pilots who were to fly the boxy cargo gliders should not be started in sailplanes. Orders that had been placed for additional sailplane types were cancelled, and those already on hand were declared surplus. From that time on, glider training was given in de-engined Cubs and Taylorcrafts that had performance characteristics closer to that of the cargo gliders.It would be interesting to know what happened to the BA-102/XTG-12 after this. (...) No mention of a Bowlus BA-102 shows in postwar CAA glider listings, however."

From my own research into Bowlus gliders, I found that only one example of the BA-102 had been constructed, but no registration could be found for it. However, there was an XBM-5 registered as [NX28386]. Now if the BA-102 and XBM-5 are one and the same glider, it makes sense. It also makes sense that the type may have been built as a civilian type, but that with the war situation going on, the glider was militarized and registered as such ("XBM" probably meant Experimental Bowlus, Military).

What could Stroukoff's involvement have been, if any? Did he design the wings of the XBM-5 for Bowlus? There is a whole five years between the evaluation of the XBM-5 and the time when Michael Stroukoff designated it as the MS-5. So he probably wasn't involved in it, and merely purchased it while at Chase Aircraft. And if the prototype wound up there, it makes sense that Peter Bowers could never find a trace of it. Now since Bowers said the type was meant as a trainer for cargo gliders, perhaps Stroukoff meant to use it exactly as such for his pilots? Still, that doesn't mean he had to designate it as a Stroukoff design, so I'd imagine he must have tinkered around with it somehow, modifying things here and there to make its handling even closer to the experience of full-scale cargo glider pilots.

But of course this is still speculation, so I'd appreciate your views on this!Meanwhile, here's a beautiful photo of the XBM-5 (and the only one I know of it in flight):